Saturday, January 04, 2014

Opponents of
same-sex marriage simply don’t have a case. Share a panel with one of the
leaders of the movement, and you’ll see why

As one of the
very few journalists in the English language to have paid attention to the
issue of same-sex marriage in Taiwan, I guess it was only natural that I be
invited to be part of a panel on the issue, which National Taiwan Normal
University held on Jan. 3.

I could hardly
contain my surprise (and admittedly, excitement) when, upon receiving the
agenda, I realized that I would be sharing the panel with Chang Chuan-fong (張全鋒), the spokesperson for the Taiwan
Interreligious Coalition for Cherishing Family — and by family they mean
strictly heterosexual families. Sean Pan (潘柏翰) of National Taiwan University and I were invited to make
the case in favor of same-sex marriage; Chang, with a presentation titled “The
Reasons We Oppose Legalizing [a] Same-Sex Marriage Act in Taiwan,” was
evidently against, while Aline Tayar, a conference interpreter in the EU, made
the not invalid argument against the validity of marriage as an institution
(confession: This writer is getting married in 20 days).

Needless to say,
Chang, who is associated with the Unification Church — or the “Moonies,” as
they are better known in the West — did not disappoint, if by that you mean the
repetition of the same old platitudes as to why legalizing same-sex unions
would be catastrophic for society. In case you’re unsure as to the Unification
Church’s position on homosexuality, here is a quote from their Web site: “Satan
is destroying the families of the world. He is using strategies such as
homosexuality, free sex and the destruction of morality to ruin peoples’
lives.” Or the Rev. Moon himself, who founded the Church, describing
homosexuals as “dirty dung-eating dogs” and “There will be a purge on God’s
orders, and evil will be eliminated like shadows. Gays will be eliminated.”
(The Unification Church has since claimed that Moon’s speeches were in Korean
and therefore we cannot know the true meaning of his sayings. Luckily for us,
other like-minded fanatical Christian organizations, like the International
House of Prayer (IHOP), are less circumspect and their leaders are English-speaking
Americans.)

Chang’s
presentation was a rehashing of the old claims that we’ve heard far too often
since the campaign against amendments to Article 972 was initiated: The spread
of AIDS; the slippery slope leading to bestiality, incest and promiscuity; the
destruction of moral values; infidelity (as if only homosexuals were fooling
around); the “rights” of children; “absolute sex” versus “free sex” and so on. (Though
he didn’t bother to define the term, we can only conclude that “absolute sex”
involves the missionary position between a man and a woman, and never before 7pm!)
At one point Chang prophesized that even though we don’t see the ills today,
same-sex marriage would destroy Taiwan, much as the accumulation of various
deficiencies ultimately destroyed the Soviet Union. How equal rights for all
equates with bad economic policies, foreign wars and the corrosive effects of
Totalitarianism he obviously would not explain.

A participant at LGBT Pride 2013

To seal his
case, Chang also presented a video showing a very narrow selection from the
latest LGBT Pride Parade, with scantily clad men and women dancing and
clubbing. According to him, allowing same-sex marriage would lead to a society
where such public (I almost wrote pubic) displays would become routine. Having
observed the last two LGBT parades in Taipei, I can confirm that some people do
dress up for the event, but they are (a) not the majority (b) they are making a
point and (c) for the other 364 days of the year, they dress just like you and
me and Mr. Chang. (In fact, during the parade, I ran into a man in drag who, as it turns out, I had been buying CDs from at Eslite for several years. It took me a while to recognize him, and I can assure you that when I buy my music from him at the store, he is wearing ordinary clothes and not showing any more skin than the other employees.) I was tempted to ask him if he’d ever been to a funeral in
Taiwan, where it is the custom for scantily clad women to pole dance for the dead. Oh, and apparently (According to Chang) the parade also promoted the use of recreational drugs, which is, again, complete lies.

Chang also
claimed that the many heterosexuals who support homosexual unions are doing so
not because they care about justice, human rights and equality, but for more
selfish reasons. People like me apparently side with homosexuals because we
want “sexual liberation” and “free sex,” which is something that we allegedly
crave and from which we would somehow benefit. In other words, homosexuals are
mere means to an end, tools selfishly used to achieve something else.

Then came the
perpetrator as victim, with Chang arguing that the Christians are being
discriminated against because of efforts to pass anti-discrimination laws
against gays. In other words, denying them the right to discriminate is …
discrimination! (Poor things. They would no longer be able to spew lies about
homosexuals without the risk of facing lawsuits.) Moreover, Chang said that
unlike countries in the West, Taiwan doesn’t need laws to regulate such issues.
God’s laws are sufficient. So there we have it, Chang flashing his Dominionism
colors (look up the term, it’s truly scary stuff).

Our Moonist
friend also argued that many people who oppose same-sex marriage — especially those
who had not expressed an opinion when polled — were afraid to do so publicly
for fear that they would be repressed, as if homosexuals and their supporters
were the ones who were trying to deny them rights that they already enjoy.

The interesting
thing about Chang and many other religious leaders who oppose same-sex marriage
was his evident discomfort with all things of the flesh. He himself didn’t look
at ease within his body, and his voice lowered to a mere mumble whenever he
discussed sexual acts. We could barely hear him when he briefly touched on BDSM
and other unorthodox forms of sexuality (oh, how thin the skin around the anus
is!), which obviously are all bad, dangerous, and ultimately immoral. This
unease with all things sexual is such a common phenomenon among homophobes and
opponents of homosexual marriage that there must be something to it.

Of course, there
was exactly nothing we could do to change his views. He had religious “truth”
and a whole encyclopedia of unprovables on his side, and all he did when
challenged as to repeat his bigoted claims like a broken record. (Perhaps if
one repeats a lie often enough it can become the truth…) Given the composition
of the people in attendance (the conference room was packed), I can’t imagine
Mr. Chang succeeding in bringing anyone on his side, and on several occasions
when he launched one of his diatribes, I saw people suppressing laughter,
rolling their eyes or shaking their heads in disbelief. I had to behave, as I
was on the panel and was seated next to him. But my eyes did roll on a few
occasions. It did feel like I had traveled back in time and was finding myself
in the Dark Ages.

The more they
leave the insularity of their churches and show their colors to the world out
there, the worst off they are, and the closer we get to finally seeing
legalized same-sex unions in Taiwan and elsewhere.

* * *

Having dispensed
with Mr. Chang, here is what I said during the 20 minutes allowed me, in a
speech titled “Same-Sex Marriage in Taiwan: A Case for Progress, Modernity, and
Putting Taiwan on the Map.”

Despite the
claims by opponents of same-sex unions, homosexuality is not a disease, nor is
it a choice or something that it “acquired” through environmental exposure. The
keys to its existence are grounded in biology. Here’s a personal example: My
mother grew up in St. Ludger, a very Catholic village south of Quebec City (most
of the neighboring villages were also named after saints) in the years
following the Duplessis regime, which had imposed a rigid Roman Catholic system
on all aspects of society. From a very early age (she is on her sixties), the
world told her that homosexuality was “bad,” “immoral,” a disease. As far as I
know, she did not grow up alongside homosexuals, or if she did, nobody had
dared to “come out.”

How, then, could
she had “caught” or “learned” homosexuality, which is something that is often
claimed by homophobes? And how did she know, from a very young age, that she
liked girls? Why is it that 16 years of heterosexual marriage to a wonderful
man (my father), a lifetime of religious conviction and a B.A. in theology didn’t
“heal” her, or change who/what she was? The answer is biology. Homosexuality is
a naturally occurring phenomenon, and we are, whether we like it or not, the
product of nature and evolution. We do not stand outside of it, which is
another claim that is often made by the Church, especially among creationists
and proponents of “intelligent design.”

There is not a
shred of evidence to prove all the ills that would purportedly befall Taiwan
should it adopt same-sex legislation (AIDS and other STDs, promiscuity,
bestiality, incest, social confusion, &c). Unless, of course, the belief is
akin to that of the American Reverend Michael Bray, who claims — and I quote
from Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion (p. 270) — that “innocent citizens are
at risk of becoming collateral damage when God chooses to strike a town with a
natural disaster because it houses sinners.”

The only
instability that emerges from the question of same-sex unions comes from those
who oppose it — hate campaigns, such as in Russia or Uganda, lies, religious
extremism, and so on; or who react negatively when confronted to its reality
(hatred, blackmail, family divisions, &c).

Someone could
counter my claims with the “What if” argument: “What if same-sex marriage had already been legal during your parents’
generation? Your mother would have married another woman and so would your
father. As a result, you would not have been born.” Indeed. Although I like
to think that I am unique and that, as a journalist, I am making positive contributions
to society, there is nothing irreplaceable or teleological about me. The child
that would have issued from my father’s union with another woman could later
have discovered the cure for cancer. (Conversely, he could have been the next
Hitler, which some members of the anti-same-sex-unions alliance don’t seem to
have much of a problem with.)

Your mother, having formed a union with
another woman, could not have had a child. Wrong. Surrogacy, IVF, and adoption are options. And on the
last option, adoption by same-sex parents is evidently preferable to
traditional families in which children are abused, or to children growing up in
orphanages. I don’t for a second buy the argument that children growing up in a
homosexual household will be confused about who and what they are.

The argument
advanced by opponents of same-sex marriage is purely along the lines of
morality (“true love” versus “incomplete love”), which must — and cannot — be
proven. It is also predicated on biblical dictates and the belief that one can
only learn good morals from the Bible. What, then, of the billions of people
who do not subscribe to Christianity? Are they all immoral, or amoral? Of
course not, and there is ample evidence showing that morality develops
independently of sacred texts, oftentimes despite
religion.

The argument
goes as follows: Same-sex marriage is immoral because the Bible says that it
is; legalizing it through man-made laws would kill morality and lead to an
epidemic of homosexuality and ultimately chaos. Following that logic, a country
that legalizes murder would soon descend into an orgy of massacres. Why that
isn’t the case is because we have an innate sense of morality. We know that
murder is wrong, and don’t need a law (man-made or divine) to tell us that. The
same applies to homosexuality. Legalizing it will not increase homosexuality,
because heterosexuals know they are heterosexuals and have no inclination
towards homosexuality.

Legalizing
same-sex unions contributes to social stability by creating incentives for
stable relationships.

The “low birthrate” argument: Taiwan
already has the lowest birthrate on the face of the planet. Legalizing same-sex
marriages would exacerbate the problem. This is false logic. Whether same-sex unions are allowed or
not, homosexual couples will continue to exist and will not — cases of IVF and
surrogacy excepted — produce children of their own, nor will heterosexual Taiwanese
couples produce more or less children than they do now. However, legalizing
same-sex unions would foster the stability that is required to ensure
successful adoptions and upbringing.

Canada began
legalizing same-sex marriages a decade ago. There is no empirical evidence
whatsoever to prove that legalization has undermined social stability. Canada
was, and remains, one of the most stable countries politically and socially on the
planet.

Taiwan can show
leadership by becoming the first country in East Asia to legalize same-sex
unions. This would send a very powerful message to international society that
it is not China. Taiwanese society at
large either supports same-sex unions (about 53%) or is indifferent (15-20%), meaning
that there is no fundamental opposition.

As I have
demonstrated in a series of articles published in the past month, opposition
and mobilization to same-sex marriage has been overwhelmingly Christian-led, with
strong leverage in government, and uses rhetoric that is imported from outside.
I have yet to encounter a single indigenous rationale for opposing same-sex
marriage in Taiwan. (Ironically, opponents claim that the very notion of gay
unions is an import from the West.)

This is not just
a matter of human rights; this is also an issue of reason, logic and the
enlightenment versus obscurantism. Normalizing homosexuality and promoting
equality would teach children the values of acceptance and tolerance, perhaps
the single most important tool for progress as a society and something that
religious groups, that people like Mr. Chang, should be promoting rather than
stamp upon. (Photos by the author)NEW! A Chinese version of this article is available here.